For some strange reason the command of the Arizona State University Police Department hasn’t been able to staff its campuses with police officers for many years and counting. For 5 years or more ASU Police command has been offering time and a half OVERTIME pay for any officers willing to work more than 40 hours in a desperate attempt to shore up the shortages.

Why with aggressive hiring attempts, heavy advertising, and its own in house promotion department can ASUPD not staff its own campuses? Why is this going on for 5+ years and counting. Even worse, ASU Police can’t staff its own overtime events and has to beg for help from police departments all over the state. Why is this? Because the command at the Arizona State University Police Department are absolute egotistical morons who lack the most important quality in law enforcement INTEGRITY.

ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER IN LEADERSHIP

1. HOSTILITY TO SUBORDINATES: ASU Police Command makes no secret of its contempt for their own employees. Stories about what they are currently doing to employees, what they’ve done to employees just never die. The truth comes out and employees see the alarming lack of integrity within its leadership and their handpicked successors.
2. CORRUPT & EXCESSIVE INTERNAL AFFAIR INVESTIGATIONS: ASU Police Command has a well-known record of conducting themselves without any shred of integrity whatsoever. They make up Internal Affair Investigations without merit and target employees they don’t like while looking the other way for the ones they favor. This is the well-known retention program to cheaply keep employees from being able to move on with a career in law enforcement. ASU Police conducts more “I.A’s” per employee than any police department in Arizona.
3. CRONYISM WITH UNQUALIFIED PROMOTIONS: Promotions for ASU Police are already spoken for. ASUPD command has continually rewarded unqualified candidates for promotion over more qualified competition. It’s common for them to restrict who can test for positions, change the rules during the process, and redo a process if they don’t like who’s applying. We’ve discovered that ASU Command accepted invitations for barbecues/poker playing at the Fuchtman household shortly before appointing supervisor novice Katie Fuchtman to Sergeant over much more qualified candidates. Resumes are routinely ignored in promotion processes in favor of subjective oral boards where people can be handpicked.
4.  NO RAISES FOR YEARS AT A TIME: As an ASU Police Officer you will watch the salary of your counterparts at other departments soar while yours remains stagnant for 5+ years, their overtime compared to your COMP time is a huge bump, plus all the bonuses for STEP increases, training bonuses, makes it a no brainer that you need to leave ASUPD to succeed.
5.   CORRUPT EVALUATION PROCESSES: All ASU Police employees get evaluations. The “clique” allows one another to write their own evaluations and scores with 4 being low and most receiving 5 or higher. Most ASUPD employees receive the standard 3 as a rule. This allows command to flood the salaries of their friends with money that comes for any raise, but also makes them appear to be a better employee than others not favored, but who work harder and are more qualified for higher scores.
6.  NO OPPORTUNITES & NO TRAINING: Just like promotions, specialty positions and training are already spoken for. Police officers from real police departments get opportunities for further training in all aspects of law enforcement without the political garbage of ASUPD. After 3 years a police officer at a real police department can expect an opening in any one of many specialty positions and opportunities for more training than you have time for. Remember that training makes you more marketable to other police departments. With ASUPD running short of officers 100% of the time for years that’s a real fear.
7.  NO SUPPORT FOR THEIR OWN POLICE OFFICERS: Only the friends of ASUPD command, the clique, receive any support when their people within the department come under public scrutiny. Besides getting the support of command you will find these people are the ones receiving the largest amount of public complaints because they are empowered to be rude, violate civil rights, and collect public complaints without any recourse. All complaints will be found unfounded regardless of evidence. The people not favored by command habitually do not get public complaints, but are buried by internally generated complaints IA’s against them.
8.  NO SAFETY WITH NO STAFFING: ASU Command won’t be out on calls with you and neither will their bosses, so they will never understand when you are grossly outnumbered on a call and you have little or no backup. If a protest or sport crowd is too aggressive and too large or any other priority event should happen it’s time to call Tempe, Mesa, Phoenix, Glendale, and beg for help if they’re not too busy. Great public safety plan.
9.  TOXIC WORKPLACE STRESS: ASU Command systematically creates an environment so full of stress for its employees that morale has always been low unless you’re new. The longer you remain in the department the more you will understand all the above issues to be entirely true. You will spend 40 or more hours a week at a place you will increasingly dislike because of the gross mismanagement of the department by corrupt officials throughout the command structure whose only care is their own career.
10. NO REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES: ASU Command identifies anyone who has a problem with their supervisor or anything their supervisor does as a problem. You become the problem for professionally attempting to address an issue. This effectively creates a US & THEM mentality that the command at ASUPD fully believes in without exception.  It was that way under Chief John Pickens and his band of bobble-head idiots and it remains that way under the equally unimaginative, think inside the box, Chief Michael Thompson and the band of bobble-head idiots he inherited from Pickens. You become the problem for professionally attempting to address an issue. This  effectively creates a US & THEM mentality that the command at ASUPD fully believes in without exception.  It was that way under Chief John Pickens and his band of bobble-head idiots and it remains that way under the equally unimaginative, think inside the box, Chief Michael Thompson and the band of bobble-head idiots he inherited from Pickens.

 

 

The Arizona State University School Newspaper, The State Press, had an interview with ASU Police Chief Michael Thompson. The full article is here:

http://www.statepress.com/article/2015/05/asu-police-department-battles-wit-uncertain-effects-of-budget-cuts

Apparently the school newspaper is the only place Chief Thompson feels comfortable telling less than truthful statements about the causes of ASUPD’s many systemic everlasting problems. Professional investigative reporters would tear him a new one for the statements he made in this article.

It’s time to look at these statements for what they’re worth.

ASUPD Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: Chief Michael Thompson stated, “It’s always tight, we’re efficient with our money, and we spend it wisely, but it all has to do with budgeting.”

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: “It’s always tight…” More lies from ASU Police Chief Mike Thompson. Thompson has treated the ASU Police Budget much like congress treats our tax dollars. Spend, spend, and spend because somebody else is paying for it. More ASU Police issues get media attention? Run over to the Fulton Center asking for more money. Money isn’t the issue, its mismanagement. We would like Chief Thompson to answer these questions.

How tight is it when you have funding to pay officers and dispatchers time and a half for over three years to cover shifts because the root problems of ASUPD have never been addressed?

How tight is it when you create 3 new management lines starting at $70,000 a piece while we are continuing to lose employees to other departments at an alarming rate? Whoops! $210,000 and more when they work department paid overtime. Are we at 20 Sergeants now? How many new civilian lines have you created? Add another $100,000. Congratulations on adding well over a quarter million to the payroll of the Arizona State University Police Department that have nothing to do with patrol.

How tight is it when you move a Sergeant to the “Events Overtime position” held by officers for decades and making them an “Events Overtime Supervisor” then create another job “Events Overtime Assistant” at a time when the university is looking to make huge 100 Million dollars cuts and raise tuition 11% overnight.  You just tripled the cost of running that small facet of the department that has nothing to do with day to day patrol operations.

How tight is it when you have more supervisors on shifts than working, patrolling police officers the same way Pickens mismanaged the department?

How tight is it when you can afford to pay so many supervisors to sit in their offices for entire shifts playing on their computers or having shift long 12hr social events?

How tight is it really when each campus has a commander, Tempe campus has two commanders, all five of them making six figures, and they spend the work week in Tempe doing what month after month, year after year? Doing your job?

How tight is it when you come under fire for having surplus assault rifles, get ordered by your boss to return them, and then under their nose you order 20K? worth of assault rifles, scopes, and silencers of the type only trained SWAT teams would use? Are you appeasing the firearms clique?

The truth is it’s not very tight at all. In fact it’s pretty loose. Chief Mike Thompson and his command are inefficient with the money allocated to them, and they spend it like fools not realizing they are making the same catastrophic mistakes of the Pickens era because they get pat on the backs for mismanagement failure by a university administration much more concerned with this blog than making sure they do their jobs. Brilliant.

ASUPD Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: Thompson said while ASUPD may be understaffed, it has also been misrepresented by the media.

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: Really? This is why you’re talking to the kid’s newspaper and not the grown-ups who do it for a living earning national awards for their work? The fact based analysis of investigative reporters, citing every detail as they go in black and white is too much to handle? Tell us Chief Thompson, no dismissive generalizations, what exactly has been misrepresented and how? Put it on the table, put up or shut up. It sounds like your criticisms of the Integrity Report. The criticism is intentionally vague, based on emotion, and wholly lacks supporting truth.

ASUPD Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: Common policy for college campus security typically involves having one security officer for every 1,000 students, Thompson said, and ASU has a large population of online students who are in no need of ASU police protection.

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: It’s also not just “common policy”, it’s a FEDERAL GUIDELINE set forth by the US Department of Justice. These guidelines are for numbers of Police Officers, not Police Aides, and ASUPD does not have a Security Officer title.

By Chief Thompson’s vague statements we can only assume he is referring to this article: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/09/21/asu-police-staffing-lags-campus-growth/15999573/

The ASUPD Chief’s Advisory Board showed the department to be short 50-80 officers. A national report found ASU’s ratio of sworn officers to students is about 25 percent below the national average for large, public schools. Should we believe ASUPD short timer Chief Thompson or a retired ASU Police Sergeant, 20 years on the job, stressed the low staffing and related safety concerns here:

Retired ASU Sgt. Marvin Tahmahkera compared the daily scheduling of patrol officers to a popular video game in which a player must manipulate random blocks into position before the pieces fall to the bottom.

“Every day it seemed like a game of Tetris. Someone would call in sick,” said Tahmahkera, who retired last year after 22 years with the department.

He recalls responding to a domestic-violence call by himself at ASU’s Polytechnic campus, a situation where law-enforcement best practices say having a backup officer is a necessary precaution. The staffing levels sometimes made it difficult to patrol dorms, look for underage drinkers and rattle doors at night to make sure they were locked.

“Many times I was the officer in charge, and I was just praying nothing would happen that night,” he said.

Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: Common policy for college campus security typically involves having one security officer for every 1,000 students, Thompson said, and ASU has a large population of online students who are in no need of ASU police protection.

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: First, as Police Chief of the Arizona State Police Department Thompson should know the difference between police officers and security officers, so we’ll just assume this was a State Press mistake.

Secondly Mike Thompson is wrong again, ONE officer for every THOUSAND? WRONG. The typical number is at least TWO POLICE OFFICERS for every THOUSAND!

Look at official government and reputable sources for this information, not a politician trusted with public safety:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)

http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Officer-to-Population-Ratios.pdf

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwid2tjfsYvGAhUKiw0KHThQAFA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ficma.org%2FDocuments%2FDocument%2FDocument%2F305747&ei=6XV7Vd3BLoqWNriggYAF&usg=AFQjCNGIBiqKB8ELvEuvrp48nKvYTafEEQ

http://policepay.blogspot.com/2008/09/sworn-police-officers-per-1000-citizens.html

Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: Common policy for college campus security typically involves having one security officer for every 1,000 students, Thompson said, and ASU has a large population of online students who are in no need of ASU police protection.

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: Chief Thompson says ASU has a large population of online students and that throws off the requirements for staffing? At the time of this article those numbers read like this, ASU is the largest public university in the country with 82,000 students, including 13,000 online-only students. At the time of his statement to the State Press ASU is set to break the 100,000 student mark. How many are online students and how much has the department grown to meet this number? These 13,000 online students never come to ASU? We will do the math for Chief Thompson, 100,000-13,000 = 87,000 What about the 87,000 students Mike T? The truth on ASUPD Staffing can be found here: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/09/21/asu-police-staffing-lags-campus-growth/15999573/

Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: “We hired 15 new police officers this year,” Thompson said. “We are looking at different salary strategies to see what would be the best way to retain some (of the current) employees.”

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: The key word of “salary strategies” is more aptly called “throwing a little bone” or “salary schemes”. So far all they came up with a salary scheme that nets an officer a few hundred dollars per year above their salary for sticking around. The starting ASUPD officer makes 48 and stays at 48 seemingly forever, while other agencies start in the low 50’s and go up yearly. Overtime for hours past 40? Nope. You get COMP time to take time off, but due to staffing you just accrue it. When Thompson says, “to retain some (of the current) employees.” He better move quick, anyone that can leave does, they see the future isn’t at ASUPD making peanuts, getting denied opportunities and promotions by a corrupt command who gives them to their political appointees.

 Chief Thompson’s STATEMENT: These strategies will be key in maintaining the size of ASU’s police force because it lost employees in the past.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible problem, but we do have some attrition,” he said. “We have some people transferring to different agencies, but not more than normal.”

Thompson said losing officers was not always due to issues of salary but often a result of their desire to seize different opportunities.

ASUPD Integrity Report’s RESPONSE: Listen to the above statement and ask yourself if it sounds like an honest answer or deceptive one? In one sentence Thompson says the salary strategies will be key in maintaining the size of the police force, but ends with saying losing officers was not always due to salary, but “desire to seize different opportunities”. Once again as with his predecessor Chief Thompson can’t acknowledge the leadership vacuum at ASUPD despite having far more supervisors than patrol units.

When Thompson says, “We have some people transferring to different agencies, but not more than normal.” Does he mean “…more than normal” for ASU Police OR more than normal for an average police department, the two are very different. Normal police departments don’t have scheduling panic freak-out sessions (emergency meetings) for consecutive years because they lose entire squads and need to replace them overnight. The turnover will continue as more ASUPD officers read the writing on the wall and realize they can never promote/make more money/or get a specialty position based on merit or experience.

The ASU Police Command tired long ago of putting their mugs out in front of media cameras and looking like fools, so they created yet another ASU Police Job Title, Public Information Officer, months ago and have been unsuccessful in filling it until now. This position changed to “Media Relations” with no police experience.

The fact of the matter is that ASU Police Chief Thompson, like his predecessor, lacks the essential skills of leadership and management experience that will grow the ASU Police Department and make it place where officers, civilians, starting their law enforcement careers feel important, valued, and not discarded.

The complete lack of integrity within the command levels of this agency

is a stink that few can abide. The latest objective truth of this are the promotion appointments,

passing over the most qualified candidates for political appointments.

Why would any hard working officer subject themselves to this when there are respectable agencies with reputable leadership to work with

and actual opportunities, not make believe ones?

The former chief surrounded himself with an army of supervisors, but that’s not how the work gets done and is a proven business model failure. Thompson is doing more of the same things that failed Pickens. His two-faced dishonesty will significantly undermine the trust employees are supposed to have for a police chief, for an organization meant to be held together with trust in one another. The cronyism is every bit as bad as it was under Pickens and the one thing the ASU Police Department doesn’t need are more issues undermining morale.

 

Here’s the original article:

By Isabella Castillo | 05/01/15 1:46pm

Understaffed and already on a tight budget, the ASU Police Department is bracing itself for state budget cuts to come in the next year.

The state Legislature cut university funding by $99 million for the 2016 fiscal year, and ASU is already working on strategies to work with the reduction in funds.

ASU Chief of Police Michael Thompson said the police department was told the funding reductions should not affect the money allocated to campus security, but he added that they are still waiting to see “how everything turns out” as far as the budget is concerned.

ASUPD is on a tight budget as it is, and the school has struggled with criticism in the past for being understaffed in its security department for a school of its size.

“It’s always tight,” Thompson said. “We’re efficient with our money, and we spend it wisely, but it all has to do with budgeting.”

Thompson said while ASUPD may be understaffed, it has also been misrepresented by the media.

Common policy for college campus security typically involves having one security officer for every 1,000 students, Thompson said, and ASU has a large population of online students who are in no need of ASU police protection.

ASU is working on expanding its police force, as well as making an effort to retain the officers already employed.

“We hired 15 new police officers this year,” Thompson said. “We are looking at different salary strategies to see what would be the best way to retain some (of the current) employees.”

These strategies will be key in maintaining the size of ASU’s police force because it lost employees in the past.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible problem, but we do have some attrition,” he said. “We have some people transferring to different agencies, but not more than normal.”

Thompson said losing officers was not always due to issues of salary but often a result of their desire to seize different opportunities.

Police Aide Richard Bailey also said ASUPD has suffered with issues regarding the size of its police force.

“We’ve had a surge for a period of time where we had to fill slots because we just didn’t have enough manpower,” Bailey said. “We’ve been undermanned for years. We’ve increased our number of students in ASU tremendously, but they haven’t increased the police department to match it. That’s a problem. There will be days when we only have three officers to take care of this campus here in Tempe.”

Bailey said officers leave for different reasons, but a primary reason is that police departments in cities like Chandler, Tempe and Peoria are able to offer them better paying positions.

“Our officers don’t make as much money as any of the cities surrounding us,” Bailey said. “Because of the rollbacks in periods of financial setbacks, we had to let people go.”

Despite difficulties with funding, Bailey said he has complete faith in Thompson’s management.

“If he can get the funding to do what he wants to do, he could develop this police force, which handles all four campuses, into a force that we would be proud of,” Bailey said. “(He) is doing everything he can to correct the problems in the workforce. He’s a very smart man and he’s going to do a great job for ASUPD.”

Increasing the size of its staff is not the only method for preserving the safety of ASU’s students the police department has implemented.

Recently, ASU launched the Livesafe mobile app, which allows students to be in direct contact with the police force, as well as utilize tools like SafeWalk, which allows friends or family to monitor each other’s step-by-step progress when walking alone.

However, students like civil engineering senior Ashley Archambault are still concerned about the size of ASU’s police force and hopeful that it will continue to expand.

“If officers are being recruited to other places that are paying higher, we need to be allocating more money to that,” Archambault said. “It’s such a big campus. As a woman, I would feel safer knowing there was more personnel.”

Notes:

the fact that when gauging police coverage in a given city, the number of police officers actually engaged in direct law enforcement activities, often referred to as patrol strength, is in many ways a more meaningful measure than the total number of officers on the payroll.

 

The public has a right to know how mismanagement within the Arizona State University Police Department affects the quality of public safety for the ASU community. The public pays close to 15 million dollars to fund a university police department that is grossly understaffed and top-heavy. How did this happen? One major contributor is poor departmental morale compounded by an unfair and unethical promotional process. After all, why would a rookie officer want to stay in a department where the only way to receive a pay raise is a promotion, and promotions are not based on merit or experience?

Many employees are frustrated by the promotional process (“Friend-zone appointments”) because it has the appearances of being nothing more than nepotism shrouded by illusions of “fairness” and “merit”. The qualifications of the candidates in the last three “processes” varied considerably. In each “process” there were novices and overqualified candidates; none of the overqualified candidates were selected with the exception of J.Morel as sergeant (he’s a retired cop from a real police department with triple the combined patrol experience of his fellow newly appointed sergeants). The other two ASUPD sergeant appointments–K. Fuchtman and D. Melton–have the LEAST amount of patrol experience of candidates in the sergeant process. Melton spent most of his career riding shotgun with another department (Tempe) on a special unit, barely working in his own department; Fuchtman spent most of her time at the department on FMLA, having babies, and being sick. She was appointed by her own husband to be both a field training officer (FTO), and a bicycle instructor. Prior to this promotional process, Fuchtman had taken a YEAR off.  When she was actually on patrol, she had a high number of public complaints, as noted in a recent New Times article.

Not too terribly long ago, ASU tried to crucify former ASUPD Officer S. Ferrin by reversing several complaints against Ferrin that had been  close and marked as “unfounded” (the department investigated the claims and determined them to be false). Several other employees who have also been given cushy positions within the department–among  them M. Janda, and D. Gauhgan–have been involved in a high number of complaints and also civil suits against the university. According to the New Times, “Ferrin clearly was singled out for doing what other ASU cops have been allowed to get away with for years”. How can a promotional process be viewed as “fair” when the individuals receiving promotions have received the same amount of sustained complaints as those employees (Ferrin) the university tried to terminate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the comment from “Integrity First”, “A commander from a local police agency with over 20 years of experience, a master’s degree, FBI National Academy and other credentials was denied the opportunity to test for the AC position because he does not have “campus” law enforcement experience even though his experience wraps circles around the acting AC. The fix is in for the AC and other selections it appears.” This comment appeared here: https://network23.org/theintegrityreport/2015/03/12/unofficial-but-honest-current-assessment-of-the-arizona-state-university-police-department-state-of-readiness-03-11-2015/#comments

Ironically enough the man who received the job, Patrick Foster, doesn’t have “campus” law enforcement experience. What he does have is experience at MESA PD like the current chief and assistant chief. What someone at the assistant chief level usually has is a master’s degree. Neither the former acting ASUPD Assistant Chief, Michelle Rourke or current ASUPD Assistant Chief Lou Digirolamo have masters degrees, in fact the only degree listed between them is one Associate’s degree from a community college.  As far as we know neither one went to the FBI National Academy. Their qualifications are listed here. https://cfo.asu.edu/police

This outsider who was denied the opportunity to test, besides having a good lawsuit, now understands ASUPD processes have no consistency from one to the next. This guarantees an under-qualified command can manipulate the results. In some processes one person applied and was awarded it without issue, there are others where applicants are told several applicants aren’t enough and they will be holding another process. Other processes have three or more people more than eligible to apply and they pick nobody because they don’t want to “reward” people they don’t like.

Afterwards an appointment is made to someone who has no more experience than those who applied or even less than what was initially required. The lies from command are tailored to each situation and never add up because they can’t keep a straight story. Sounds like the criminals we arrest don’t it? For this reason you will never see ASUPD command in front of a news camera. The incompetence of past performances is memorable.

There are promotion processes where some experience is emphasized (college experience driving in circles responding to petty calls), while other experience is ignored (all non-college police experience at respectable agencies responding to emergency traffic). The real reason is the candidates need to be what Pickens called “owned” meaning they were nothing to other police agencies and ASU police was their only avenue to be in the business as a police officer.

These publicly funded processes are meant to choose the best candidates for the position and are meant to be fair and impartial in their selections. At ASUPD nothing could be further from the truth and that is disturbing.

When it comes to who’s running public safety only the most qualified candidates should be selected. Qualifications are not much of a consideration in this highly political and hostile workplace where groups of employees, up to a half dozen at once, quit around the same time.

Four of the officers featured in the recruiting brochure were out the door by the time it was printed! Coincidence?

ASU POLICE operates business as usual under Chief Thompson the way it did under Pickens. Crow clearly has no interest in getting his police department together. Both chiefs became angry when confronted with the issues and not only do they refuse to acknowledge or address problems, they actively managed to worsen them with inflexible out of touch leadership that rewards the same people who created the problems in the first place

 

Not only has the ASUPD command selected people for supervisor who have spent little time on the job as a patrol officer, they also selected some people who frequently garnered complaints from the public and were reported for doing so in the media. Worse than this they once again passed over people with 10, 20, 30 years of outside police agency experience for those with some “college experience”; their clique friends. The present day commanders were promoted over their more qualified contemporaries years ago.  Opinions are one thing, but the resumes don’t lie.

They open these “processes” to outside applicants, but anyone can get turned away regardless of qualifications. The recent ASUPD Assistant chief selection came from Mesa PD, what college policing experience did he have there? What association does he have with the other top two in ASUPD command since they all came from the same department?

After all that what was the reason given to exclude another applicant from testing? Most of the time no outside applicants get selected or even make it to the final round. The appointment of Mike Thompson to chief is a good example of this. The commander testing was the same way. The university puts no value on public safety competency because they want boot licking lapdogs that cower before the all mighty OZ. Professional police management might tell the university administration they’re doing it wrong, and not having that in place puts the public at risk more than ever as the university approaches the 100,000+ student mark.

The last person to be in command from the outside, who didn’t get appointed from Sergeant, was ASUPD Commander Kevin Williams, now University of Michigan-Dearborn’s chief of police and director of public safety. http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2014/06/23/news/doc53a828952114c794534774.txt

The corrupt existing command immediately circled the wagons against Williams and he couldn’t wait to get out of the Arizona State University Police Department because of the stress command put him through. He was threatened, mocked, and shunned by his fellow command for what end? This sounds more like a bullying story about children on the playground, but it’s true, this is how adult aged men and women manage a police department at the Arizona State University Police Department.

ASUPD command have always been afraid of people more qualified than them, afraid of people they don’t already have under their control, afraid of outside people who think different, and are especially reluctant to tolerate people who adhere to the sort of ethical platform law enforcement as a whole prides itself on. Ask any former employee who is free to speak their mind about the ASUPD management and the responses are relatively the same. A damning response with plenty of supporting information and experience about the complete lack of integrity within the agency management.

This is another ASU public safety corruption story in the works.  More light needs to be shed on the culture of corruption, lack of integrity, the non-existent vetting process, cronyism, and anti-American values that appear to be systemic to Arizona State University Police Department and “the New American University” administration who supports it.

In a side note we would like to offer our condolences to the employees at ASUPD who were officially and unofficially accused of being affiliated with the blog or even being the blog administrator.  We have received a substantial amount of feedback on the subject, including people who no longer work there, and can tell you to date the number of the accused for this blog is well into the double digits. The investigation and exposure of ASU POLICE mismanagement and their lack of integrity will continue.

The public deserves better, they deserve results.

They don’t deserve lies, sloppy deceptions, institutional corruption,

and the gross mismanagement of their public safety tax dollars.

Every red cent at ASU becomes part of a tax dollar and apparently some people forgot that.

Here’s another reminder.

Here’s ASU Police Chief Michael Thompson in full spin mode and this will be addressed:

http://www.statepress.com/article/2015/05/asu-police-department-battles-wit-uncertain-effects-of-budget-cuts